I. Whether Kings may rescind their own Acts.
THe Promises, Contracts, and Oaths of Kings, and of such others as have the like Soveraign power, have some questions peculiar to themselves, as well concerning what power they have over their own Acts, as concern∣ing what they have over their Subjects, as that which they have over their Successors. As to the first of these, it is questioned, Whether the King himself hath the same power to restore himself to the full, or to make void his own Contracts, or to absolve himself from his Oath, as he hath, his Subjects. Bodine was of opinion that a King being circumvented by another mans fraud, by fear or error, may for the same causes be restored to his own Rights, as well in things appertaining to the lessening of his Prerogative as a King, or in things appertaining to his private Estate, as his Subjects may. Whereunto he addes, That a King is not bound by his Oath, if the Contract agreed on be such, as by the Civil Law may be revoked, although the Contracts be agreeable to honesty. And that a King is not therefore bound, because he hath sworn; but as every man may be bound by such just covenants, so far as it concerns the other Party. But we, as we have elsewhere distinguished, so do we here, between the acts of Kings which they do as Kings, and the private acts of the same Kings. For what they do as Kings in their politick Capacity, is so esteemed, as done by the consent of the whole Nation: But over such acts, as the Laws made by the whole body of the people could have no power, because the Community cannot be superiour to it self; so neither can the Preroga∣tive Laws of a King null his own publick acts; because a King cannot be Superiour to himself. Wherefore restitution which receives its vigor from the Civil Law only, is of no force against such Contracts. Neither are those Contracts to be exempted which Kings make in their Minority.